Peer Review Plan for A Comparison of the Cost of Energy for the Proposed Cape Wind Energy Project Site and Alternative Sites

Content:
qualityinfo@mms.gov

Pagemasters:
OMM Web Team

MMS Peer Review Plan

A Comparison of the Cost of Energy for the Proposed Cape Wind Energy Project Site and Alternative Sites

Overview
The model to be reviewed may be used to calculate the cost of energy associated with offshore wind energy facilities, and allows for the entry of project specific parameters related to site, technical, financial and other relevant factors. The MMS applied this model to the proposed and alternative sites considered in the draft environmental impact statement (EIS) for the Cape Wind Energy Project, a 130-turbine, 468-megawatt wind energy project proposed for Nantucket Sound, in order to compare the relative cost of energy associated with the proposed and alternative sites.
Potential Impact
The site comparison study is likely to result in influential scientific information. It will be used in identifying a reasonable range of alternatives for purposes of analyzing the environmental effects of the proposed Cape Wind Energy Project in the EIS, and may also be relevant to other wind energy facilities proposed for construction on the outer continental shelf in the future.
Time Frame
The draft study has already been reviewed by MMS subject-matter experts. The period for review by outside experts will be approximately 30 days. Depending on the complexity of the reviewers’ comments, MMS may engage in further discussion with one or more of the peer reviewers before a final version is prepared.
Manner of Review
The MMS has solicited independent reviewers in related technical fields. Comments and suggestions on the draft study from the reviewers will be considered for inclusion in the final report.
Opportunity for Public Comment
The MMS will not solicit public comments during the peer review. However, the study, as revised after peer review, will be made available for public comment (via posting on the MMS web site) as an appendix or attachment to the draft EIS of the Cape Wind Energy Project, as will the peer reviewers’ names and their comments. Public comments on the study received during the comment period for the draft EIS will be taken into account during the preparation of the final EIS.
Peer Reviewer Access to Public Comments
Public comments are not incorporated in the peer review process for this study.
Expected Number of Reviewers
The outside peer review is being conducted by four outside experts from academia and the private or non-profit sector with relevant expertise.
Requisite Expertise
Reviewers should have knowledge, experience, and skills in one or more of the following areas: electric power plant economics, electricity markets, project finance, wind energy resource assessment, wind energy development and operations.
Selection of Reviewers
Outside reviewers were selected by MMS. The following criteria were considered in selecting reviewers:
- Expertise (as discussed under item 8 above);
- Independence: The reviewers should not be employed by the Minerals Management Service. Academic and consulting scientists should have sufficient independence from the Service if the government supports their work.
- Objectivity: The reviewers should be recognized by peers as being objective, open-minded, and thoughtful. In addition, the reviewer should be comfortable sharing his or her knowledge and perspectives and openly identifying his or her knowledge gaps.
- Advocacy: The reviewers should not be known or recognized for an affiliation with an advocacy position relating to the Cape Wind Energy Project.
- Conflict of Interest: The reviewers should not have any financial or other interest that could impair his or her objectivity or create an unfair competitive advantage. If an otherwise qualified reviewer has an unavoidable conflict of interest, the Service may publicly disclose the conflict.
Nomination Process
MMS informally discussed peer reviewers internally and with outside experts familiar with relevant subject areas, but no formal nomination process was used.

Date: May 31, 2007

Privacy | Disclaimers | Accessibility

Home | Search | Topic Index | About MMS | What's New

Last Updated: 05/31/2007, 09:59 PM